Police Recommend Charges Against Jerusalem Av Beis Din

Following an investigation Israel Police is recommending a criminal indictment against Jerusalem Av Beis Din Rabbi Yehuda Rabinowitz. Following the investigation by the police’s Lahav 433 unit, a criminal indictment is being recommended.

The rav stands accused of abusing his senior position with his involvement in a divorce case, and working with a family member behind the scene who happens to be an attorney who frequents the Family Court and beis din, and often represents one party in a divorce case that attracts the av beis din’s attention. The av beis din allegedly assist his relative frequently to swing a case in favor of her client.

The case begins with a complaint filed with the court ombudsman against dayanim and the administration of the Rabbanut Beis Din. The complaint alleged officials abused their authority and took advantage of people regarding divorce cases in their care. During the investigation police report learning the av beis din used his authority to influence the outcome of cases and was frequently found to be in violation of conflicting interests, but this did not stop him from advancing family interests, particularly the family attorney who was representing one party in a divorce case before the beis din.

Charges are most likely going to follow against the attorney who appears committed illegal acts as well according to investigators. Regarding the av beis din Lahav investigators feel that have gathered sufficient evidence to move ahead with an indictment against the dayan that includes charges of fraud, thievery, interfering with the judicial process, breach of trust and aggravated forgery.

1 COMMENT

The zionist Beitei Din, which are government agencies constituted according to the law of the Medinah rather than according to Torah, are expected to avoid favoritism since many of their users are people who are not religious. Given the inevitable tension of people being forced to use a legal system not of their own, its inevitable there will be problems.

The article should make clear this is a government agency whose “judges” are civil servants, who operate according to the dictates of the state. The article suggest this was the “Jerusalem Beit Din” rathar than a government court.